A European Declaration of Independence

I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN something would be out of kilter. At the end of September, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), an international body made up of 55 nations—including such dictatorships as nearby Belarus—called for a day-long roundtable in the lovely and spiritual city of Warsaw. The topic was “Intolerance and Discrimination Against Muslims.” Aside from OSCE diplomats, staff, and two representatives of the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, the participants consisted of some 25 representatives of Muslim NGOs as well as European and North American human rights monitors.

I should have known something was amiss because I have witnessed much OSCE mischief since going to postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo in the late 1990s. And don’t forget that OSCE was the international organisation with the nerve to propose that it “observe” the most recent U.S. presidential election for presumptive irregularities. But it has an especially bad record in the Balkans, as has been pointed out in The Weekly Standard.

The OSCE is, to put it bluntly, political correctness personified. Its agenda for combating intolerance and discrimination includes everyone from prostitutes to victims of schoolyard bullying. But it was obvious that the status of Islam in Europe, which has lately involved bloodshed in several countries, is viewed by OSCEcrats as an intractable challenge. The do-gooders had no apparent choice but to relegate the roundtable on Muslims to a place outside the regular agenda of a weeklong “human dimension” assembly in Warsaw, and to hold the Muslim gathering in the basement of a hotel.

Reliable sources reported that the OSCE’s Warsaw conference on Islam came as a trade-off for a conference on anti-Semitism held in Córdoba, Spain, earlier this year. It was soon made clear that the event would serve as little more than a platform for ranters and cranks from such countries as Britain and Denmark who were there to defend radical Islam. It turns out that proponents of Islamist extremism over there are even more aggressive, defiant, and confrontational than their American counterparts.

Thus, a religious functionary from Britain, Imam Dr. Abduljalil Sajid of the grandly (and, it appears, falsely) titled Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, used up much of the morning’s discussion with loud denunciations of Tony Blair for his alleged assault on civil rights in the wake of “7/7.” Before that this religious leader, when asked which school of Islamic law, or madhdhab, he followed, said, “I shoot all madhdhabs.”

Imam Sajid regaled the audience with the many times he had confronted Blair, insisting to the British prime minister that Islam and terrorism are completely unconnected from one another. He also offered up a diatribe against internment at Guantanamo. In the minds of many Muslims at the event, it seemed, the London bombings and the attacks that preceded them, as well as the radical ideology that inspired them, are irrelevant; the only thing that matters is to push back against the legal response of the British, U.S., and other European authorities.

THE PHRASE “the Fight Against Extremism” was included on the agenda of the meeting, but not one word was said about it until the very end, when Turkish diplomat Omur Orhun let his voice sink to a near-whisper. He affirmed, in closing the deliberations, that the problem of extremism would eventually have to be taken up, “because that is what brought us all here.” But to listen to many of the other participants one might have thought fear of Muslims among non-Muslims in Europe was a purely gratuitous expression of bias, or, as Nuzhat Jafri of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women put it, a product of “U.S. foreign policy decisions.”

When I pointed out to her that Saudi-financed Wahhabi terrorists have struck Turkey, a country that opposed U.S. policy in Iraq, as well as Morocco and Indonesia, which have nothing to do with Washington’s policies, Ms. Jafri limited herself to the admission that additional “root causes” exist; these she left undescribed.

Others were less restrained. Scandinavian countries seem to have experienced a particular incapacity to exclude Muslim extremists from their territories. Bashy Quraishy, a man who disclaims being religious, averring that he is not a practicing Muslim, seems to have adopted the defence of radical Islam as a career move, and is a self-proclaimed functionary of the “Federation of Ethnic Minority Organisations in Denmark.” Although he admits his irreligion and distance from Islam, Quraishy has no compunctions about presenting himself as an expert on it.

Quraishy did his best to hog the proceedings. While Imam Sajid asserted the lack of any link between Islam and terror, Quraishy demanded that global media be prevented from even suggesting such a thing. His printed handouts, piled up on a side table, were hallucinatory in tone. To him, “America Under Attack”—a CNN caption after September 11, 2001—was offensively prejudiced. In addition, Quraishy’s handouts insisted, “there was no proof, no one took responsibility, and not one particular country or group was singled out” for blame in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. There was nothing more than “finger pointing” at Islam.

Quraishy also recycled the late Jude Wanniski’s attacks on Richard Perle as the evil controller of “uncritical and nationalistic journalism and intentional use of anti-Islam terminology as a tool of propaganda.” Quraishy reproduced the clichés employed by al Qaeda and its supporters: the “Crusades are back,” and Saddam in Iraq was nothing but a “tiny dictator.” Quraishy’s pamphlets even asserted that “fundamentalist,” “ghetto,” and “ethnic gangs” are hate terms and should not be used in any media.

The rest of the palaver was less fervid, but equally absurd. Canadian Muslims complained about the effect of the U.S. Patriot Act on their country. As the afternoon wore on, phrases such as “so-called terrorists” were increasingly heard. Brit Mohammed Aziz, of Faithwise, declared that members of his community are “first responsible to God … then to the umma,” or global Islam, and only lastly to the country in which they live.

All of this came about three months after the horror in London. The meeting ended with nothing more than an agreement to hold more meetings. The OSCE it seems, like much of Europe, has few answers for the challenge of radical Islam—aside from their pieties about discrimination.

Stephen Schwartz is a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard.

(Source: weeklystandard.com)

7. The EU Leads to Less Freedom of Speech

The EU does nothing to promote freedom in Europe, but rather spends a great deal of time trying to stamp out what’s left of it. The EU, in cooperation with Islamic countries, is rewriting school textbooks across the European continent to present a more “positive” image of Islam. The EU increasingly views the media and the education system simply as a prolonged arm of the state. This is the hallmark of a totalitarian state, which is what the EUSSR is gradually becoming. One gets the feeling that the EU’s concept of a “united Europe” means one nation, one people — and one allowed opinion. It is tempting to say one allowed religion as well: Islam.

According to British writer Daniel Hannan[2], “Eurocrats instinctively dislike spontaneous activity. To them, ‘unregulated’ is almost synonymous with ‘illegal’. The bureaucratic mindset demands uniformity, licensing, order. Eurocrats are especially upset because many bloggers, being of an anarchic disposition, are anti-Brussels. In the French, Dutch and Irish referendums, the MSM [mainstream media] were uniformly pro-treaty, whereas internet activity was overwhelmingly sceptical. Bruno Waterfield recently reported on a secret Commission report about the danger posed by online libertarians: ‘Apart from official websites, the internet has largely been a space left to anti-European feeling. Given the ability to reach an audience at a much lower cost, and given the simplicity of the No campaign messages, it has proven to be easily malleable during the campaign and pre-campaign period.’ The EU’s solution? Why, to regulate blogs!”

At the time of writing, it looks like the most radical proposals to regulate the blogosphere and independent websites have been watered down for now, but there is no doubt that the EU will make new attempts to censor the Internet, especially since the organisation has successfully bribed much of the traditional media. The EU has encouraged pan-European laws against “racism and hate speech.” Every single action the EU has taken vis-à-vis these subjects have led to more restrictions of free speech, online and offline. There is no reason not to expect that trend to continue, especially since the EU tries consistently to placate Muslims and other immigrant groups in every way possible. The EU’s attempts to crush dissent and silence criticism of its ideas will become increasingly aggressive and hard to ignore.

Q: What motivates you? How have you managed to stay focused and motivated for more than 8 years? Is it bitterness and hate towards the so called “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites” or perhaps towards Islam?

No, not at all. In fact, if they (the cultural Marxists) against all odds renounced multiculturalism today, halted all Muslim immigration and started deportation of all Muslims I would forgive them for their past crimes, and I think most Europeans would as well, despite the fact that more than 15 000 Europeans have died and 500 000 have been raped and/or ravaged physically or mentally due to multiculturalism. If they refuse to surrender before 2020 it will be no turning back. We will eventually annihilate every single one of them. They should know this so I hope they surrender before the deadline.

If they continue to defy the will of Europeans for decades to come and force Europe to the brink of catastrophe, they will be shown no mercy. It will be an extremely bloody reckoning and thousands of them will most likely be executed.

Secondly, I don’t hate Muslims at all. I acknowledge that there are magnificent Muslim individuals in Europe. In fact, I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect. This does not mean however that I will accept an Islamic presence in Europe. Muslim individuals who do not assimilate 100% within 2020 will be deported as soon as we manage to seize power.

Although I do admit that I am disgusted by the current development, I would rather say I’m driven by my love for Europe, European culture and all Europeans. This does not mean that I oppose diversity. But appreciating diversity does not mean that you support genocide of your own culture and people by accepting f example Islamic Demographic Warfare.

Europe has its own full-fledged brand of negationism: a movement to deny the large-scale and long-term crimes against humanity committed by Islam. This movement is led by Islamic apologists and Marxist academics, and followed by all the politicians, journalists and intellectuals who call themselves secularists. Similar to the Turkish negationism regarding the Armenian genocide, the European negationism regarding the terrible record of Islam is fully supported by the establishment (The EU, Western European governments). It has nearly full control of the media and dictates all state and government parlance concerning the

communal problem (more properly to be called the Islam problem).

Its techniques are essentially the same as those of negationists elsewhere:

1. Head-on denial

The crassest form of negationism is obviously the simple denial of the facts. This is mostly done in the form of general claims, such as: “Islam is tolerant”, “Islamic Spain was a model of multicultural harmony”, “the anti-Jewish hatred was unknown among Muslims until Zionism and anti-Semitism together entered the Muslim world from Europe”. Since it is rare that a specific crime of Islam is brought to the public’s notice, there is little occasion to come out and deny specific crimes. Exceptions are the Armenian genocide, officially denied in Turkey and the entire Muslim world.

The Rushdie affair was the occasion for negationism on a grand scale. There happens to be an unambiguous answer to the question:

“Is it Islamic to kill those who voice criticism of the Prophet?” According to the media and most experts, the answer was definitely: no. According to the basic traditions of Islam, it was: yes. Mohammed as well as his immediate successors have killed critics, both in formal executions and in night-time stabbings. In Islamic law, the Prophet’s example is valid precedent. At most there could be some quarrelling over the procedure: some jurists thought that Rushdie should first be kidnapped to an Islamic country and given a chance to recant before an Islamic court, though the ayatollahs have ruled that no amount of remorse can save Rushdie. If he stands by his book, even the so-called moderates think he must be killed. Islamic law punishes both apostasy and insults to the Prophet with the death penalty: twice there is no escape for Rushdie. Yet, the outside public was told by many experts that killing Rushdie is un-Islamic.

Flat denial will work very well if your grip on the press and education media is sufficient. Otherwise, there is a danger of being shown up as the negationist one really is. In that case, a number of softer techniques are available.

2. Ignoring the facts

This passive negationism is certainly the safest and the most popular. The media and textbook-writers simply keep the vast corpus of inconvenient testimony out of the readers’ view. This includes most of the information about the systematic slaughter, torture and enslavement of non-Muslims in historical and present context (including Genocides and Dhimmitude), demographic developments which show the systematic and gradual Muslim takeover of societies (Including Kosovo, Lebanon and now in many Western European countries) and al-Taqiyya/ketman – Ummah - Quranic abrogation and Jihads importance in Islam. Other essential facts are also ignored like Saudi Arabia’s role in spreading traditional Islam (so called Islamic theofascism or Wahhabism which the Eurabians like to refer to it). They have failed to inform the people of Europe that Saudi Arabia have spent more than 87 billion USD abroad the past two decades propagating “true Islam”. The bulk of this funding goes to the construction and operating expenses of thousands of mosques, madrassas and Muslim cultural centers throughout the world. These Islamic institutions are now found in every single country in the West - all over Western Europe.

3. Minimising the facts

If the inconvenient fact is pointed out that numerous Muslim chroniclers have reported a given massacre of unbelievers themselves, one

can posit a priori that they must have exaggerated to flatter their patron’s martial vanity - as if it is not significant enough that Muslim rulers felt flattered by being described as mass-murderers of infidels.

Apart from minimising the absolute size of Islamic crimes, there is the popular technique of relative minimising: make the facts look smaller by comparing them with other, carefully selected

facts. Thus, one can say that “all religions are intolerant”, which sounds plausible to many though it is patently false: in the Roman Empire only those sects were persecuted which had political ambitions (Jews when they fought for independence, Christians because they sought to take over the Empire and outlaw all other religions, as they effectively did), while the others enjoyed the status of religio licita; similarly with the Persian Empire and many other states and cultures.

An oft-invoked counterweight for the charge-sheet against Islam, is the fanaticism record of Christianity. It is indeed well-known that Christianity has been guilty of numerous temple destructions and persecutions. But the reason for this fanaticism is found in the common theological foundation of both religions: exclusivist prophetic monotheism. The case against Christianity is at once a case against Islam. Moreover, in spite of its theologically motivated tendency to intolerance, Christianity has had to go through the experience of “live and let live” because in its formative period, it was but one of the numerous sects in the pluralist Roman Empire.

Islam never had this experience, and in order to bring out its full potential of fanaticism, Christianity has needed the influence of Islam on a few occasions. Thus, it is no coincidence that Charlemagne, who defeated the Saxons by force, was the grandson of Charles Martel, who defeated the Islamic army in Poitiers; no coincidence either that the Teutonic knights who forcibly converted the Balts, were veterans of the Crusades, i.e. the campaign to liberate Palestine from Islam; nor is it a coincidence that the Spanish Inquisition emerged in a country that had needed centuries to shake off Islamic oppression. Finally, Christianity is, by and large, facing the facts of its own history, though it’s still struggling with the need to own up the responsibility for these facts.

An even more general way of drowning Islamic fanaticism in relativist comparisons is to point out that after all - every imperialistically motivated war has been less than gentle. That may well be true, but then, we are not setting up cults for the Genghis Khans of this world. A religion should contribute to man’s transcending his natural defects like greed and cruelty, and not sanction and glorify them.

4. Whitewashing

When one cannot conceal, deny or minimise the facts, one can still claim that on closer analysis, they are not as bad as they seem. One can call right what is obviously wrong. This can go very far, e.g. in his biography of Mohammed, Maxime Rodinson declared unashamedly that the extermination of the Medinese Jews by Mohammed was doubtlessly the best solution. In numerous popular introductions to Islam, the fact that Islam imposes the death penalty on apostates (in modern terminology: that Islam opposes freedom of religion in the most radical manner) is acknowledged; but then it is explained that “since Islam was at war with the polytheists, apostasy equalled treason and desertion, something which is still punished with death in our secular society”. All right, but the point is precisely that Islam chose to be at war with the traditional religion of Arabia, as also with all other religions, and that it has made this state of war into a permanent feature of its law system.

5. Playing up unrepresentative facts

A popular tactic in negationism consists in finding a positive but uncharacteristic event, and highlighting it while keeping the over-all picture out of the public’s view. For instance, a document is found in which Christians, whose son has forcibly been inducted in the Ottoman Janissary army,

express pride because their son has made it to high office within this army. The fact that these people manage to see the bright side of their son’s abduction, enslavement and forced conversion, is then used to prove that non-Muslims were quite happy under Muslim rule, and to conceal the fact that the devshirme, the forcible conversion and abduction of one fifth of the Christian children by the Ottoman authorities, constituted a constant and formidable terror bewailed in hundreds of heart-rending songs and stories.

For another example, negationists always mention cases of collaboration by non-Muslims (German support in the Armenian Genocide etc.) to suggest that these were treated as partners and equals and that Muslim rule was quite benevolent; when in fact every history of an occupation, even the most cruel one, is also the history of a collaboration. As has been pointed out, the Nazis employed Jewish guards in the Warsaw ghetto, disprove the Nazi oppression of the Jews.

6. Denying the motive

Negationists sometimes accept the facts, but disclaim their hero’s responsibility for them. Thus, Mohammed Habib tried to exonerate Islam by ascribing to the Islamic invaders alternative motives: Turkish barbarity, greed, the need to put down conspiracies brewing in temples. In reality, those rulers who had secular reasons to avoid an all-out confrontation with the unbelievers were often reprimanded by their clerical courtiers for neglecting their Islamic duty. The same clerics were never unduly worried over possible secular motives in a ruler’s mind as long as these prompted him to action against the unbelievers. At any rate, the fact that Islam could be used routinely to justify plunder and enslavement (unlike, say, Buddhism), is still significant enough.

7. Smokescreen

Another common tactic consists in blurring the problem by questioning the very terms of the debate: “Islam does not exist, for there are many Islam’s, with big differences between countries etc.” It would indeed be hard to criticise something that is so ill- defined. But the simple fact is that Islam does exist: it is the doctrine contained in the Quran, normative for all Muslims, and in the Hadith, normative for at least all Sunni Muslims. There are differences between the law schools concerning minor points, and of course there are considerable differences in the extent to which Muslims are effectively faithful to Islamic doctrine, and correspondingly, the extent to which they mix it with un-Islamic elements.

8. Blaming fringe phenomena

When faced with hard facts of Islamic fanaticism, negationists often blame them on some fringe tendency, now popularly known as fundamentalism or Wahhabism. This is said to be the product of post-colonial frustration, basically foreign to genuine Islam. In reality, fundamentalists like Maulana Maudoodi and Ayatollah Khomeini knew their Quran better than the self-deluding secularists who brand them as bad Muslims. What is called fundamentalism or Wahhabism is in fact the original Islam, as is proven by the fact that fundamentalists have existed since long before colonialism, e.g. the 13th century theologian Ibn Taimiya, who is still a lighthouse for today’s Maudoodis, Turabis, Madanis and Khomeini’s. When Ayatollah Khomeini declared that the goal of Islam is the conquest of all non- Muslim countries, this was merely a reformulation of Mohammed’s long-term strategy and of the Quranic assurance that God has promised the entire world to Islam. In the case of communism, one can shift the blame from Marx to Lenin and Stalin, but Islamic terrorism has started with Mohammed himself.

9. Arguments ad hominem

If denying the evidence is not tenable, one can always distort it by means of selective quoting and imputing motives to the original authors of the source material; or manipulating quotations to make them say the opposite of the over-all picture which the original author has presented. Focus all attention on a few real or imagined flaws in a few selected pieces, and act as if the entire corpus of evidence has been rendered untrustworthy. To extend the alleged untrustworthiness

of one piece of evidence to the entire corpus of evidence, it is necessary to create suspicion against those who present the evidence: the implication is that they have a plan of history falsification, that this plan has been exposed in the case of this one piece of evidence, but that it is only logical that such motivated history falsifiers are also behind the concoction of the rest of the alleged evidence.

If the discussion of inconvenient evidence cannot be prevented, disperse it by raising other issues, such as the human imperfections which every victim of crimes against humanity inevitably has (Jewish harshness against the Palestinians, Hindu untouchability); describe the demand for the truth as a ploy to justify and cover up these imperfections. If the facts have to be faced at all, then blame the victim. If people ignore or refute your distorted version of history, accuse them of distortion and political abuse of history. Slander scholars whose testimony is inconvenient; impute political or other motives to them in order to pull the attention away from the hard evidence they present.

Fact: Encyclopedia Britannica was first published in 1768. The contributors often came from other countries and included some of the world’s most respected authorities in their fields.

Western state sanctioned negationism or “politically motivated historical revisionism” on the subject of Islam started for the first time in Great Britain in the late 19

thcentury. The process was politically motivated with the goal of creating a good foundation for British-Muslim cooperation and trade.

During the Russo-Turkish War[3], Russia succeeded in defeating the Islamic Ottoman Empire. In 1878, after the “Congress of Berlin[4]”, Disraeli-Great Britain decided to strike a deal with the Ottomans promising to protect them militarily from Russia for “thirty

pieces of silver” which in this case was Cyprus. In order to improve British-Ottoman relationships it was decided to introduce a wide scale revision of Encyclopedia Britannica (10

thedition and onward) and other source materials which up to then had described Islam, Muslims and Islamic practices as “evil”. This was the beginning of the official European historical falsification process.

To understand this we need to study British-Russian relations:

The super power of the 19th century, Great Britain, waged a “territorial war” with the other potential super power: Russia. Where interests of the two crossed was - Balkans (then under Turkish occupation).

It would be most natural that Russia should have the influence in the area. Most of the subdued Balkan nations (Serbs, Greeks, Rumanians, and Bulgarians) are Eastern Orthodox - like Russians. That did not fit British interests. That is how Britain allied itself with Turkey and invented the myth of the Muslim tolerance.

When Turks cut throats, raped women and stole children of Balkan Christians - it was OK for the Brits - it was an expression of tolerance… As long as Russians did not get influence in the Balkans.

Historical revisionism is the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past[1]. Negationism is the denial of historic crimes.

From;

Islam and the West, Bernard Lewis:

We live in a time when great efforts have been made, and continue to be made, to falsify the record of the past and to make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties, and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have been, as they would like their followers to believe that it was. All this is very dangerous indeed, to ourselves and to others, however we may define otherness — dangerous to our common humanity. Because, make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future.

Ironically though, this harsh criticism of state sanctioned revisionism comes from an Armenian Genocide denier who has downplayed the brutality of the Ottoman Empire considerably. However, Lewis is seen as a moderate Orientalist frequently sought by many mainstream policy makers including the current Bush administration.

Given the ignorance with which it is treated, the history of the last 1400 year Islamic Jihad against non-Muslims and Europe comprises one of the most radical forms of historical negationism. The First chapter of this book is therefore dedicated in memory of this ongoing Jihad. We must strive to combat and reverse state sanctioned falsification process by preparing for the time when the true history of Islam will be re-introduced. When our current European regimes fall (and our current systems based on multiculturalism will collapse) within the next 150 years it will allow us to once again re-introduce and make use of the true history of Islam, including: Islamic history, Islamic jurisprudence, and true descriptions of Jihad, Dhimmitude and other falsified aspects of Islam. The essential aim of this is to prevent historical amnesia by preserving this true uncensored history.

Since the creation of Islam in the 7

thcentury and to up to this day, the Islamic Jihad has systematically killed more than 300 million non Muslims and tortured and enslaved more than 500 million individuals. Since 9/11 2001, more than 12 000 Jihadi terrorist attacks have occurred around the world which have led to the death of one or more non-Muslims [2] per attack. In other words; there are around 150 deadly Jihadi attacks per month around the world. This trend will continue as long as there are non-Muslim targets available and as long as Islam continues to exist.

I must admit, when I first started the study on Islamic history and Islamic atrocities more than 3 years ago I really had my doubts about the “politically correct” information available. I started to scratch the surface and I was shocked as I uncovered the vast amount of “ugly, unknown” truths concerning Islamic atrocities. There is a common misconception regarding Islam and Christianity. A lot of people believe today that Christianity still is and was as evil as Islam?! I can attest to the fact that this is absolutely incorrect. Jihadi motivated killings, torture and enslavement count for more than 10 times as Christian motivated killings. However, the politically correct Western establishments want us to think otherwise.

The essence of multiculturalism is that all cultures and religions are “equal”. In this context our Western governments launched a great “campaign of deception” against their own people with the goal of creating a falsified version of the Islamic and European Civilisation, in order to make them equal. According to them, this is needed in order to successfully implement multiculturalism. Islamists, Arab Nationalists and Marxist theorists have been at the forefront of falsifying our history since WW2. Especially Edward Said’s book

Orientalism published in 1978, have been the driving force in this process.

In the past, Europe has had a stereotypical view of Islam just as Islam has had a stereotypical view of us - and these views are largely hostile. For century after century Islam was an enormous threat to what might loosely be called Christendom. It shaped every aspect of European history and was directly responsible for Europe’s colonial empires. Up till around 1750 they were a dangerous and direct competitor to our interests. Gibbon writing in the 1780s was the first to think that the danger had passed. On a local scale the threat lasted even longer. Barbary pirates ravaged the coast of England up till the 1830s carting off coastal villages into slavery and at even later dates on the west coast of Ireland and Iceland. And this was at the height of the British Empire. More than 1,5 million Europeans have been enslaved since the first Jihadi invasion of Andalusia, most of which were brought to North Africa.

History, Marxism and Islam – What your government, the academia and the media are hiding from you. Revisionism based on appeasement and anti-European thinking.